↓ Skip to main content

Aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australian former prisoners’ patterns of morbidity and risk of hospitalisation

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australian former prisoners’ patterns of morbidity and risk of hospitalisation
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0497-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane E. Lloyd, Elizabeth McEntyre, Eileen Baldry, Julian Trofimovos, Devon Indig, Penelope Abbott, Jennifer Reath, Kathy Malera-Bandjalan, Mark F. Harris

Abstract

People who have been in custody are more likely to experience multiple, long standing health issues. They are at high risk of illness and injury post release and experience poor access to health services both of which contribute to high rates of recidivism. The study was conducted to examine Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal former prisoners' risk of hospitalisation and rehospitalisation in the five years post release from custody and identified the common reasons for hospitalisations. Common reasons for hospital admission were identified by conducting descriptive analysis of linked data, related to former prisoners, from NSW Ministry of Health and Corrective Services NSW. This relied upon admitted patient data for 1899 patients. Of this cohort, 1075 people had been admitted to hospital at least once and remained out of custody over a five year period. The independent variables we studied included age, sex, and whether or not the person was Aboriginal. We conducted univariate and multivariate analysis on the following dependent variables: number of admissions over five years after release; more than one admission; days between custody and first hospitalisation; and days between first and second hospitalisation. Mental and behavioural disorders, injuries and poisoning, and infectious or parasitic diseases were the three most common reasons for admission. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal former prisoners had a broadly similar pattern of reasons for admission. Yet Aboriginal former prisoners were more likely than non-Aboriginal former prisoners to have a shorter mean interval between hospital admission and readmission (187 days compared to 259 days, t = 2.90, p-0.004). Despite poorer health among Aboriginal people, there were broadly similar patterns of reasons for admission to hospital among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal former prisoners. There may be a number of explanations for this. The cohort was not a representative sample of the NSW prison population. There was an overrepresentation of individuals with cognitive disability (intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, dementia, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder) in the study population, which may have impacted on this group accessing hospital health care. Alternatively perhaps there were fewer presentations to hospital by Aboriginal former prisoners despite a greater need. The shorter interval between hospital admission and readmission for Aboriginal former prisoners may suggest the need for better follow up care in the community after discharge from hospital. This presents an opportunity for primary health care services to work more closely with hospitals to identify and manage Aboriginal former prisoners discharged from hospital so as to prevent readmission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 128 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 22%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Librarian 7 5%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 40 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 19%
Psychology 20 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Decision Sciences 2 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 47 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,590,632
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,025
of 1,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,741
of 423,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#18
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.